Adit Garg Week #10: Difference Between Force and Power
When it comes to selling people an idea, there are two different ways to go about it: using force and using powerful language. We have all seen examples of both. If you have been to a tourist area, you have probably encountered people on the streets selling you through desperate calls: that would be forceful language. If you have ever heard the speech of a politician in a democracy, you have heard the combination of different rhetorical strategies and appeals: that would be powerful language. Forceful language and action are when you create obstacles for the participant where the only way to get around the obstacles is to succumb to the idea. Powerful language is when the right words and phrases come together to make the participant feel safe following the idea.
If one had to choose between the use of force or powerful language, the best choice would be powerful language. Powerful language not only convinces people but also sparks a spirit of trust and devotion to the influencer. Such strong feelings in the persuaded not only make them succumb to the idea but also make them fight to preserve the idea. The problem with forceful language is that the feeling of trust and devotion do not exist. In fact, it is quite the opposite; the participant feels resentment. This is risky because the participant will not fight to preserve the idea but may even fight against the idea.
However, governments in the real world do not have to choose between one or the other; they can make use of both force and power. Hitler used emotion to spark huge nationalistic devotion to his ideas. He then used the force average of most communist regimes; controlling the information that people take in and punishing dissent. As we know, Hitler created one of the if not the most successful dictatorships in human history. On the other hand, the Taliban relies completely on force. They simply come into the country and force people to follow them or they will die. The Taliban gets overthrown pretty quickly after they gain power. American politicians on the other hand rely mainly on emotion because the structure of the government prevents the politicians from using force. Their power effortlessly dies after a maximum of eight years (their influence is not strong enough for the 22nd amendment to be fought against). As twisted as it may sound, the biggest dictatorships in human history use a combination of force and power; force acts as a precautionary measure while language keeps the idea alive and justifies the force.
Hi Adit, I think that peddlers on the street have to use more forceful language because the way they are presented does not establish enough ethos for customers to even consider listening to them in the first place, which is quite sad. Establishing credibility seems to be very important in drawing the line between using force and using powerful language as power can only be used when there are people willing to hear you out. If powerful language is used without a willing audience, it would be very ineffective. In the example of the Taliban, they use force to seize power because no one would voluntarily listen to terrorists. Because power is a combination of both credibility and persuasion instead of blunt coercion, naturally it would be more effective.
ReplyDeleteYour blog makes an interesting distinction Adit, as people in different situations have to utilize different styles of rhetoric and speaking in order to convey their message and reach their goals. Peddlers on the street seem to have to use forceful language as they have to hard sell their product or service to people who don't know who they are and possibly didn't think they even needed this service or product. As a result, the peddler would have to use more forceful language to sell their product, which can be uncomfortable at times. However, politicians and most people utilizing rhetoric in speeches and other messages tend to have a reputation or status that precedes them, and thus less force has to be applied to convince the audience to heed their message or trust their words. Thus, they dedicate more time to appealing to this audience and convincing them that their message is right or true or whatnot, and thus can effectively sway an audience using more emotional and passionate appeals. This distinction, I think, emerges because of the vast difference in circumstance, as forceful and powerful language, as well as other styles, have to be used intermittently in your life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Adit, I found your blog to be very interesting. I never really considered the difference between force and powerful speeches, and how governments use both in conjunction in order to maintain their power. I think that in the short term, force is more powerful than powerful language, because under forceful regimes like the Taliban people’s lives are threatened if they try to rebel. When people’s lives are in danger, it is very hard for people to gather the courage to fight against them. However, as we can see with the Taliban, leaders who use force, ultimately, do get overthrown. There is so much resentment against governments that use too much force and at one point or another, their need for change and a better life outweighs their fear for their lives. Thus in the long run, in order to maintain their power, leaders need to use powerful speech so that their citizens agree with their ideology and support them. I agree with you that the most successful and powerful governments are the ones that use both power and force, but hopefully one day more governments will use power more than force.
ReplyDeleteHi Adit! The forceful language that is being normalized within our minds is very harmful to the overall succumbed ness that people might feel in response to narrowing their possibilities to coming up with an idea to nearly not negligible. Putting together a speech that fosters a safe environment for everyone could be difficult, but it is always important to be able to preserve a sense of togetherness within anything that is being done since we might not be able to gain the audience’s attention otherwise. Although I agree that there are some speakers who incentivize the audience to agree with them for some selfish motives, we must also recognize the speakers we are forever grateful for such as Martin Luther King Jr. who had always ensured that trust and devotion were sparked within the person getting influenced. With no signs of wanting to betray anyone or take advantage of them by any sort, it is reasonable enough to state that speakers as such are vital to the growth of our nation. Thank you for clearly differentiating the difference between each of these types of languages, and I hope to read more regarding these topics.
ReplyDeleteHi Adit! I liked how you distinguished persuasion into two forms of language. I agree that powerful language would be the better of the two forms, as I would personally want my audience's trust in me and my ideas. I certainly would not want to risk antagonizing my audience either. It's interesting to see how influential figures throughout history have actually used a mixture of the two forms of language with varying success. I suppose it's beneficial that we have restrictions on forceful coercion in our political system, as most people would probably not want to be pressured into supporting something they don't agree with.
ReplyDeleteHi Adit, it's very interesting to see the way different politicians and major figures use language and force to justify their power. I feel that language itself can be used as force; not only a gun can move people. As you mentioned, someone like Hitler used his language as force. He convinced a whole group of people that they were superior to everyone else, forcing everyone to stay silent as millions of Jews were killed in concentration camps. Force can also be used for good. Someone like Malcom X is a good example of this. He was forceful and aggressive, and his speeches were known to be more direct than King's speeches.
ReplyDeleteHi Adit! I remember seeing peddlers a lot in my visits to India especially in areas with a lot of tourism. When we went to New Delhi and Agra I saw a lot of peddlers selling toys and I’d always ask my parents for them. The last time I was there I was 7 so I don’t remember too much in specific. I like how you connected language to the peddlers' aggressively persuasive advertising. Language paired with force can be a dangerous tool as seen with the rise of a lot of oppressive regimes. Most politicians in office have a strong backing behind what they show to the public. It creates a bridge between the communities and their leaders to help them know what is going on behind the scenes. Rhetoric is used expressively to communicate different themes to listeners. Whether it be elements of nationalism, power, comfort, or hope rhetoric plays a clear role. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteLanguage must be customized for each individual situation. When President Reagan made his famous anti-communism speech that had the famous words: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" That is an example of a forceful speech: one that demands action and requires a result. There is no alternative presented: it is a command. There are also powerful speeches: President Kennedy's anti-communist speech "IIch bin ein Berliner" was perhaps one of the most powerful political speeches ever and one of the strongest speeches in American history. It was a speech from the heart: one of major belief and made up on the spot. With a combination of both like Hitler possessed, almost anybody could be convinced, and those that were not could be silenced. With a superior grasp on communication, miracles can occur.
ReplyDelete